Something I never understood is why people argue against Sachin because he has so many not outs. If India were a team that didn't declare so much or make big scores, it would be an argument that could make sense. But it makes no sense because it's basically saying, "Sachin's average is higher because people couldn't get him out, so he's worse than Lara." The fact that Sachin has so many not outs says bowlers couldn't get him out.
It is just another reason why stats shouldn't be trusted though. I mean Mike Hussey is a fine player, but his ODI average is too high because of his not outs. Then again, the fact that bowlers can't get him out at the death says something special about him. How do you know which way to look at it? By not trusting stats and trusting your eyes.
As for Lara, which is what this thread was originally about...
If you watched cricket from 1993-1995 you would swear Lara would go on to become the second best batsman ever after Bradman. I forget the period of time, I think I saw it on wikipedia, but for a period of time before the 1999 Australia series, for a couple of years Lara averaged around 30, taking his average from 60 down to 50... those were bad years because the West Indies had more match winners in those days, yet Lara let them down.
From there, my general feeling on Lara has been that he was always good for a big score, and that's helped his stats. For example, the year he got 400* meant that he could score 8 ducks and end up with an average of 50. His average was of course high for that year, but if Ponting of Yousuf made that score they'd average well over 100 for the year.
For me, Lara is one of the ten best batsman of all time.
(gotta cut my post short, finish later)
It was only just over a year ago I thought I was going.
